Blueprint for Reform

In reading the “Blueprint for Reform – Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act” by the United States Department of Education and forwarded by President Barack Obama, I am struck by the President's comment “[other] countries are being smarter about how to educate their students”. Based on this, and my interest in teaching science, I chose to dissect the section “A Complete Education”. The section addresses strengthening instruction in literacy and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, while reforming standards. It addresses support for teachers in implementing and dealing with “more rigorous standards”. It particularly focuses on “high-need” schools and the awarding of state funded, competitive, “Focus Grants” to the ones who have adopted common, state-developed, college- and career-ready standards, or use technology to address student learning challenges in literacy. The reform mentions plans to expand access to college coursework and other accelerated learning opportunities, and improving access to a well-rounded education in general. In the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics section the reform states:

States will award competitive subgrants to high-need districts to support comprehensive STEM instruction in the grades and schools with the greatest local need. Programs must provide effective professional development for teachers and school leaders; high-quality state- or locally-determined curricula, instructional materials, and assessments; and interventions that ensure that all students are served appropriately. Subgrantees may use program funds to integrate evidence-based, effective mathematics or science programs into the teaching of other core academic subjects and for technology-based strategies to improve STEM education.

The reform goes on as such, mentioning higher standards and teacher support, answering all the hows with “throw money at the one's most in need”. What about the ones not “most in need”? The President said that the renovation of the plan would “renovate a flawed law” but “raise the expectations for our students [and] for our schools”. In this document I simply could not see how this motivating talk of higher standards and smarter graduates through higher standards and grants could be implemented in my own neighborhood school without qualifying for the self-identified rigorous grants for those only in the highest need. So I asked the Internet.

The Department of Education's website contains a more thorough explanation of the plan for the Complete Education. Chillingly, it first informs me that “From among U.S. postsecondary institutions, 16 percent of undergraduate degrees are awarded in STEM-related fields. By comparison, ... South Korea awards 41 percent (Phillips, 2007)”. In fact, most of the section is statistical data of the failing of teachers and students, with occasional sprinkles of victories like “The proportion of students achieving at the Basic level or above on the NAEP mathematics exam is increasing”. Then, an obvious and yet profound statement is made: “Teacher content knowledge in mathematics and science is important … Content experience varies among high school science faculty, who may not have a degree in the subject they are assigned to teach”.

This very important statement is addressed in the Supporting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education document. It claims the reforms plan to ensure that more prospective teachers, including STEM teachers, have access to high-quality preparation programs by doubling the funding for these programs. According to STEMfinity and the Department of Education's website this funding largely comes in the form of grant programs like “Investing in Innovation Fund” and competitive programs like “Race to the Top”. The document also asks states to hold teacher

preparation programs accountable for preparing teacher graduates. Quality teachers who are successful in their preparation can be recognized and rewarded with advancement opportunities (the document does not specify what kind, perhaps the proposed “Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Master Teacher Corps”) and additional compensation.

The reform appears to address the inability of current United States graduates to compete in the global job market in the STEM fields, and it's solution is to “raise standards” either metaphorically or through “improved assessment” and offer grants for the most needy schools who are willing to align their standards to the Federal standards and show they are making headway. Since I have never won the lottery I will presume my school will neither be the schools who do not need such grants (who does not need more resources, after all), nor be among the “most needy” schools that will receive them. The quality of my teaching falls to me. I must accept the teacher-preparation education I can get and build on it through periodic self-assessment and continual cultivation of my skills and resources. Money would certainly afford a teacher physical resources for their students in the form of newer textbooks, overhead projectors or computer projectors, and laboratory materials. Barring governmental windfall my greatest resource will be my dedication to instilling the passion and curiousity of science in my students, and my creativity. As a future science teacher I appreciate the possibility of more resources for my neighborhood school but do not believe these standards and methods effectively address the issue for the majority of schools.

Resources.

STEMfinity (2013). STEM Grants. Retrieved from http://www.stemfinity.com/STEM-Education-Grants.

United States Department of Education (2010). Blueprint for Reform – Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf .

United States Department of Education (2010). A Complete Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/complete-education.pdf.

United States Department of Education (2010). Supporting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/supporting-stem.pdf.

United States Government (2013) Reform for the Future. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/reform.

Education Adequacy VS Education Equity

            Education adequacy is defined as a legal approach that ensures educational opportunities to poorer students based on state constitution guarantees for efficient, thorough, and uniform education (Sadker A-13). It is an approach that seeks to find the minimum a school and student must have and know in order to provide that for them. It is not something that ensures those poorer students receive the same quality and level of education that more wealthy students receive; it is not “education equity”.

            One of the reasons all schools are not created equal, though the students attending them are deemed so under the Constitution, is that the money funding those schools comes from the tax-payers. In a system where property taxes fund the school of the children paying those property taxes a wealthy neighborhood will have a more funded school compared to the school of a poorer neighborhood. Those who lobby for education equity seek a funding system that pools the money of both the poor and the wealthy neighborhood and divides the money between the two schools in such a way that the students of each receives a similar quality of education. This kind of system tends to meet resistance from the wealthier parents who subscribe to a form of education Darwinism. To these parents they have earned the money they pay into their school and thereby earned a better education for their offspring. The poorer parents argue that their children are equal citizens and should receive equal “protection” for their right to education in the form of monetary help. Poorer schools without this help may end up with inadequate books, unqualified teachers (Sadker 306), and therefore an inadequate education preventing the students from attaining a method of escaping the poverty cycle.

            Attaining educational equity between schools is obviously a difficult matter. Some states have made steps to improve the educational situation of the impoverished by creating legislation for more adequate education but the terms are general may be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some states require “sound basic” education, and others “thorough”, some “efficient” (Sadker 309). Without statistical data on monetary requirements of schools and legislation towards meeting that requirement, these “standards” are little more than hopeful goals.

Sadker, David Miller. Teachers, Schools, and Society, 2010 McGraw-Hill. New York.

Image: "South Carolina public school funding 2009-2010" Posted on July 8, 2009. Accessed 2012 Nov 27. [http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/south-carolina-public-school-funding-2009-2010/]